Thank You Very Much. I was just frustrated at the beginning of the games, because I was stumped about how to effectively set up the variable sets and make inferences. If I was Dustin Hoffman's Rainman I wouldn't be worried, but I went through the LG Bible and the Setups guide and have found no general principles in approaching the setting up of the grouping games. On the Hamster?Gerbil/Lizard/Snake game I tried the numberical distributions but was dumbfounded on how many distributions to make and and how to use it in making inferences. Again youre imput was appreciated.

So I have started to go though the grouping games and decided to start with the first ones Tests 2-10, expecting them to be less challenging compared to the later ones. I struggled with coming up with effective setups, making several attempts and had a difficult time with the inferences as well, especially on the Lizards, Snakes, Gerbils and Hamsters game. I've been going through the LGB, but it leaves much to be desired in the way of grouping games. There's gotta be some general principles in approaching Grouping game setups, no? These games weren't covered by the PS setups guide, so I was left to guess on my own. Some ove the rules in from the games (Tests 5, 6, 8 and such) seemed convoluted and confusing, and I found it difficult to make inferences. What do I do?

My Ugrad GPA was a 3.00 so I was expecting my LSDAS GPA to be a 2.85 or so. Well, They processed my transcripts and I was left with a 2.76. Am I screwed? Will I have to score a 160 to get into any law school? I am caucasian, so I am at a disadvantage in that regard. Am I screwed? I wasn't expecting to get into a T1 school but was hoping to have a shot at a T2 or T3. Any advice? Input?

dude...one in 3 is a pretty good percentage. combining the two LR sections would mean there's about 16 or 17 of those on the test. now if you want to miss 16 questions, go ahead. but i'd recommend reading it. especially if you are going for a high score. even if you you only miss 1/3 of the formal logic questions, that'd be like 5, that could take you from a 167 to a 164 pretty easily.

in other words...read it.

plus formal logic can be extremely helpful on the games as well.

Thank You, your imput was appreciated. I'll get started on it. Would it throw me off if I read it before most of the other question types? It is the 11th chapter after all.

I'm sorry if it seems I was being an oblivious to what seems to be an obvious solution (the author wouldn't include it in the book if it wasn't important or helpful). But when I was reading the intro in that chapter it he seems to state implicitly that formal logic encompasses very little of the test and that my time would be better spent studyt cause and effect reasoning and conditional reasoning, rather than formal logic itself.

That implication is true to some degree. LR problems involving some/most quantifiers only account for around 3 to 5 problems per test.

However, you want and need to get those points if you want to do the best you can so you should study it. Cause and effect permeates far more LR questions per test and is more important in terms of the volume of problems that involve it.

Learning the 'formal logic' does also help with basic conditional reasoning. It is advanced conditional reasoning and once you get good at it normal conditional reasoning should become second nature in the process.

As long as you plan your study time and get yourself disciplined about doing it you should not have to decide what to leave behind. You need to learn all of it if you want to score as high as possible.

dude...one in 3 is a pretty good percentage. combining the two LR sections would mean there's about 16 or 17 of those on the test. now if you want to miss 16 questions, go ahead. but i'd recommend reading it. especially if you are going for a high score. even if you you only miss 1/3 of the formal logic questions, that'd be like 5, that could take you from a 167 to a 164 pretty easily.

in other words...read it.

plus formal logic can be extremely helpful on the games as well.

I'm sorry if it seems I was being an oblivious to what seems to be an obvious solution (the author wouldn't include it in the book if it wasn't important or helpful). But when I was reading the intro in that chapter it he seems to state implicitly that formal logic encompasses very little of the test and that my time would be better spent studyt cause and effect reasoning and conditional reasoning, rather than formal logic itself.